In a notable judicial order passed on March 25, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2806/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Lokanath M.G. (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 89/2023 registered by the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 473 (making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 10590/2023) filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate by one N.S. Anand (a legal practitioner), which was referred for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to FIR Crime No. 89/2023.

According to the complainant:

• Residential Plot No. 1181/L situated at Avalahalli 30 feet Main Road, Gavipura, Bengaluru, was originally owned by Smt. Nagarathnamma. Following the death of her son (P.A. Sathyanarayana Gupta) in 1995, the property remained in the physical possession of his widow, Smt. Chandrakala.
• A partition suit (O.S. No. 7838/2012) was filed among family members, which ended in a compromise decree where all co-sharers relinquished their rights in favor of the complainant (N.S. Anand).
• Upon making inquiries at the Chamarajpet Sub-Registrar Office, the complainant discovered a registered Sale Deed (dated July 16, 1993) purporting that late P.A. Sathyanarayana Gupta had sold the property to Accused No. 3 (Lokanath M.G.). The complainant alleged this sale deed was forged in collusion with sub-registrar staff.
• The complainant further alleged that in 2001, Lokanath sold the property to Accused No. 1 (Mohan) and Accused No. 2 (A. Prasanna Kumar) using altered site numbers. During proceedings in Writ Petition No. 13533/2018 before the High Court of Karnataka, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 produced an allegedly fabricated family partition affidavit dated July 6, 1993, bearing a fake notary seal and signature.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Lokanath M.G. (Petitioner / Accused No. 3): Aged about 62 years, son of late R. Gangadharasa, residing at No. 8/15, 1st Main Road, Okalipuram, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560021.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri S.B.R. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Bona Fide Transaction in 1993: The petitioner submitted that he purchased the property in 1993–94 from Sathyanarayana Gupta (a family member of the complainant’s wife) via a registered instrument and subsequently sold it, having no further connection or involvement with the site.
• Civil Dispute and Delay: The defence submitted that the dispute is civil in nature, stemming from intra-family property claims dating back decades, and that the complainant built a concocted story to cause hardship.
• Compliance with Section 41A Notice: The police had served a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. on November 23, 2023, and the petitioner cooperated with the investigating agency.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under Sections 465, 468, and 473 read with Section 34 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Undertaking: The petitioner promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation and submit to all court conditions.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that:

• Prima Facie Case of Forgery: The complaint and registry records prima facie showed the involvement of the accused group in creating fake affidavits, notarizations, and property deeds.
• Ongoing Investigation: Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation into forged public documents might lead to witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or non-cooperation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, registered document details, High Court writ petition records, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Civil Origin and Documentary Record

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that the core controversy involved property transfers originating in 1993 and civil partition decrees. The court noted that the allegations revolved around registered documents and notarized affidavits, which rely on documentary verification rather than pre-trial detention.

2. Nature of Penalties and Section 41A Compliance

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 465, 468, and 473 read with Section 34 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment. The court noted that the petitioner had received a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice and showed readiness to cooperate with the investigation.

3. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty

Holding that the petitioner is a senior citizen and permanent resident of Bengaluru with deep community ties, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative, concluding that the prosecution’s concerns could be safeguarded by imposing reporting and cooperation conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent Vidhana Soudha Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 89/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, and 473 read with Section 34 IPC, on execution of a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity.
5. The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.